Bipartisan advocates for smart, sustainable environmental policies in Connecticut



Friday, June 25, 2010

RGGI Auction Price Falls Further

– By Michael Wysolmerski, Summer Intern from Yale, 
michael.wysolmerski@ctlcv.org

According to a June 11 Environmental Leader article, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) auction price of CO2 allowances for the first three-year control period (2009-2011) fell 9%, from $2.07 to $1.88, from the March 10 auction to the most recent auction, held on June 9.

This is the second consecutive drop in the price of CO2 allowances, down from $3.23 per allowance at the June 2009 auction. The latest auction brought in more than $80.4 million.

The article blames the drop in power demand due to the recession for the decline in prices. According to the Wall Street Journal, the low price of natural gas and the lack of support of RGGI from federal proposals for a national CO2 emissions cap further contributed to the lower price. A federal program would probably not supply a premium for regional allowances that would eventually be combined into the federal program.

As the article states, a study released by Environment Northeast projects that the RGGI states--Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont--could lose $3 billion in revenue in the aggregate if the Kerry-Lieberman Senate climate bill is passed. The Kerry-Lieberman bill, entitled the American Power Act, would establish a national cap-and-trade program.

RGGI’s website describes its program as the “first mandatory, market-based CO2 emissions reduction program in the United States.” The ten participating states will require a 10 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from the power sector by 2018.

Each state has its own CO2 Budget Trading Program that is connected to the other states via CO2 allowance reciprocity, meaning that a power plant can use an allowance issued by any of the states to meet its state program. The program also sets up an emission auction and trading system, so power generators can buy and sell CO2 emissions allowances. The states then are to use the auction proceeds to support “low-carbon-intensity” solutions.

The Environmental Leader notes that the total proceeds from RGGI auctions are now more than $662.8 million, and that states are investing 60% of the proceeds in energy efficiency.

In Connecticut, that investment percentage is even higher. According to the RGGI website’s Connecticut investment page, Connecticut invests 69.5% of its auction proceeds in energy efficiency programs supervised by the Energy Conservation Management Board (ECMB) and administered by Connecticut Light & Power, United Illuminating, and the Connecticut Municipal Electrical Energy Cooperative. Furthermore, 23% of the proceeds go towards Connecticut Clean Energy Fund sponsored renewable energy programs. The fall in auction prices is clearly detrimental to alternative energy funding, and the issue sheds light on the interesting, perhaps unintended, play between federal and regional proposals that have similar goals.

2 comments:

  1. I read that NJ has swept their RGGI proceeds into their general fund. Is that true, and could the other RGGI states do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael WysolmerskiJune 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM

    Yes, according to a NHBR article, New Jersey is expected to use $65 million from RGGI proceeds to help address its budget deficit. Furthermore, New York took $90 million of RGGI funds and put it towards the general fund, and the New Hampshire Legislature decided to use all of the state’s proceeds from the most recent auction towards the general fund. Since each state has a slightly different RGGI program, the ability to raid RGGI funds varies by state. Rhode Island state law prevents the use of RGGI funds to help balance the budget. However, other states have loopholes in their RGGI plans. In New York, for example, agreements made between the governor and the Legislature override all other spending plans, so the funds could be transferred.

    ReplyDelete